She Won the Psychological Battle But…

Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts

The most appropriate terms to describe how Kamala Harris triumphed over Donald Trump in Tuesday’s debate come not from political punditry but from the field of psychology: triggered, baited, ego deflated. In answer after answer Kamala Harris went straight for Donald Trump’s tender spots, calling him weak, saying he was an easy target for dictators “who can manipulate you with flattery,” and that he was having a “difficult time processing” that he actually lost the last election.

Harris laid obvious traps, like saying people left his rallies “out of exhaustion and boredom,” for example, and he walked into nearly all of them. The result was that Trump was too distracted to land many punches.

On this week’s Radio Atlantic we talk to political writers Elaine Godfrey and Mark Leibovich to explore the potential long term effects of the dramatic debate. Will this new impression of Kamala Harris stick? Will Trump’s missed opportunities make a difference? (And which is the right Taylor Swift song to capture this political moment?)

The following is a transcript of the episode:

Hanna Rosin: So, people often say that presidential debates don’t really move the needle, unless something goes wrong. We’ve had two debates this election. The first one mattered because something went wrong for Biden. Today, we’re going to talk about why this one also mattered. Because it went very wrong for Trump. Like, even many Republicans said that.

They were spinning a loss before it was over. I’m Hanna Rosin. This is Radio Atlantic. And today, we’re going to talk to Mark Leibovich and Elaine Godfrey, who cover politics for The Atlantic. Hi, Elaine.

Elaine Godfrey: Hi, Hanna.

Mark Leibovich: Hi, Hanna.

Rosin: So, we’re taping the day after the debate. The last time the two of you were on the show was two months ago, after the disastrous Biden debate. Where do you think Democrats are now?

Leibovich: In a better place. [Laughs.] Elaine?

Godfrey: A much better place. That feels like eons ago that we did that.

Rosin: Well, like, actually. Mark the moment. Sort of: Where are they actually now?

Leibovich: Bringing everyone up to date. Uh, about two months ago, Democrats, or, you know, the Biden-Trump debate: total disaster for Biden.

Everyone knew it. You know, within five minutes. And then: a summer that people will write books about for, I think, years.

Godfrey: Nope.

Leibovich: However, I will skim a book about it because, you know, we all lived through it very vividly. But, no: So the events that happened on June 27, I believe it was, resulted in a chain reaction that, as we all know, ended up in Biden dropping out, Harris becoming the nominee, and a great deal of momentum. Which seemed to be flagging a little bit for Harris.

But, you know, if it was, you would imagine it has picked right back up again after last night’s debate—which I think she won fairly convincingly.

Rosin: Elaine, what was the first moment that stood out for you?

Godfrey: Oh, the first moment for me was definitely the handshake. I was watching right away. I had paused my Roku so I could make sure to get the handshake. And like, I was getting popcorn ready. I was getting everything ready in my kitchen. Came out, watched her aggressively move across the stage toward him.

Went around the podium to demand the handshake. He looked very displeased.

Godfrey: Just thought that was sort of … that really set the tone, I think, for the rest of the debate.

Rosin: In what way? Because, Mark, you actually mentioned to me before the debate that you were going to watch out for the handshake, and if you advised her, you advised her to do exactly what she did: which was walk up to him and give him a handshake. What was the significance of the handshake?

Leibovich: It was a power move. It was absolutely a power move by someone who had a wide opening to do it, which is—you go onto a stage with someone you’ve never met before. She was assertive in that she walked into his space. I mean, don’t underestimate the power of space and space-taking and space invasion and all that.

And he didn’t quite know how to react. It was an awkward encounter. But she was in command of it. I mean, she said, “Hi, I’m Kamala Harris.” I don’t know if she rehearsed that or not. But what was clear to me was in the first few minutes of the debate, he seemed a little bit off balance. I mean, she seemed more nervous than off balance.

But it was almost as if he was regretting or second-guessing or seething. Something about, I think, that first encounter really set him off on a bad note.

Rosin: Mhm. So on a recent episode of this show, George Conway was on, and we talked about the explicit strategy of mocking and goading Trump that they were trying out at the Democratic National Convention. Conway said on that episode that he had told the Democrats they should hire a team of psychological professionals to advise them how to get under Trump’s skin.

I mean, I got the feeling that maybe they had hired a team of psychological professionals to help them get under Trump’s skin. I mean, it really felt like a psychological operation as much as a political operation.

Godfrey: It totally did. The first handshake was the opening salvo in this, but like Mark said, she seemed sort of nervous at first. She quickly kind of got it together, and then immediately projected that she was about to start doing a lot of these things, like, baiting him. And that projection, I think, took the form of her trying to make this sort of confused-slash-disgusted face at him whenever she could. Like, it was as though her team had advised her to make like, the most meme-worthy expression possible when she was looking at Trump. There was one point where she put her hand under her chin and looked at him sideways. Of course, it took off online. And it was the perfect projection of: This is how I’m going to handle Trump.

Rosin: It’s interesting, because Maya Rudolph on SNL, when she makes fun of Kamala Harris, makes fun of her trying to create memes, like she’s a try-hard with the memes. But somehow, yesterday, that element of try-hard was missing, like it was just maybe 40 degrees more natural than it usually is. And so the memes this morning, there were about 80 different faces that she made. So you know, you could just run the Kamala faces looking at him. Whereas—I bet you noticed this, Mark—did he look at her once?

Leibovich: No, he didn’t at all. And, you know, he just couldn’t. And I don’t know if that was by design. I mean, he does not seem terribly coachable. I mean, you can imagine any number of debate preppers, if he had any at all, would say, ‘Look, I mean, you know, your resting face is going to be on camera. Uh, when you look at her or don’t look at her, that will be evident on camera.’

She clearly was well prepared. And I think also—and I don’t know if I should say this, but I’ll say it anyway. She clearly was well prepared. Um, she was not Biden. And what I mean by that is, her face moved. I mean, Biden’s face did not move at all.

Rosin: You’re right. The resting face of Biden was almost what killed him in the last debate. Besides that, sort of—

Leibovich: —when he spoke.

Rosin: Besides what he spoke. But it was his resting face, which—

Leibovich: Yes, it was like, kind of the mouth slightly agape. But she, I mean, I just couldn’t stop being grateful that she was not Joe Biden. Sorry, Joe Biden lovers out there. It was the newness of her, the freshness of her face. I don’t mean to sound shallow, but it was just a really great asset for her side.

Rosin: For me, like, [when] the debate turned and she was trying to trigger him was when she was asked a question about immigration.

Now, this is her weakest spot and then, this was a few minutes into the debate. What is her biggest weakness? First, she says, you know, “I prosecuted.” Then she talks about him killing the border-security bill.

You know, he makes him seem selfish, like she’s already goading him. And then out of nowhere, she turns it into this thing about how his rallies are lame.

Rosin: And then, boom, what does he say two minutes later?

Godfrey: Rallies are not lame!

Rosin: Also, he says the sentence “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs.”

Rosin: And that was the end. I mean, that was the end. It sort of all went downhill from there. So when you guys were watching the debate, what was your reaction to that moment?

Godfrey: So, for me, it felt so obvious. It felt like watching a storm coming. It was like: Okay, she’s baiting him. Is he gonna take it? And immediately: “People love my rallies. They never leave my rallies early.” It was the perfect move for her. And she sort of seemed to take that in and just do it every time.

Like, after that, at the end of every answer or non-answer that she gave, she would bait him with something, like, you know, your family left you 400,000, or whatever it—

Rosin: You wish it was 400.

Godfrey: 400,000,000?

Rosin: Wasn’t—

Godfrey: Okay. Um, you know, a lot of money. And he, you know, immediately was defending himself from that. He can’t not respond to personal attacks. And like, it was funny, because ahead of the debate, they had been projecting that they were going to do this. They were saying to reporters, “We are going to bait him.” And he was baited.

Rosin: Right. Right.

Leibovich: Yeah, no, I mean: I don’t think, you know, you need George Conway’s three or four psychological experts to know how to get under his skin.

Rosin: And when he would answer—like, if you take that immigration answer, obviously the correct political move would be not to say “My crowds are big” but to get back to the immigration question, which is her weakness. So what were the opportunities he missed by constantly taking the bait?

Godfrey: Well, I think that we were expecting him to go in talking about—at least, there was one story saying, “He’s going to go after her prosecutorial record.” He didn’t do that a single time.

Rosin: Right. Right.

Godfrey: Was doing it totally on defense. She made it a total referendum on him. It was not at all him attacking her for anything.

I mean, he had tons of room to also say, “Hey, you didn’t answer that question about, you know, your pivot on fracking, your pivot on Medicare for All, et cetera. Because she didn’t, really. And he could have called her on it. And he didn’t because he was too busy distracted by his own, you know, ego.

Leibovich: Yeah. I mean, anytime the conversation turns to immigration, I mean, it’s like a big, however-many-minute-long gift to him. And he just wasted it by taking the other bait. I mean, you know, I think one thing that helped Harris a lot—and we’ll probably get more to this—one of the questions that Trump got was about abortion. Which, you know, obviously it’s a really uncomfortable issue for him, as he’s shown by his going, you know, any number of directions on it in the last few weeks.

And then he starts talking, you know, telling the lie about abortion. The late-term abortions and the “after-birth abortions.”

Rosin: One of my favorite moments was when the moderator calmly corrected him and said, “Oh, executing babies is not legal in any state,” and then just moved on.

Leibovich: She nails the answer. It’s certainly a popular position that she holds.

[Music]

Rosin: After the break, what did they need to accomplish going in? And how close did each of them get? That’s in a minute.

[Break]

Rosin: What were each of the candidate’s goals going into the debate? Like, let’s just think about what they were trying to accomplish, and whether they did accomplish that or not. So we’ll start with Harris. Like: What did she need to do? She needed to trigger Trump. So she did that. We’ve covered that.

Godfrey: I think she needed to come in and show that she can speak off script, and that she can laugh at him and maintain a sense of sort of maturity over him.

And I really think she did all of those things. At first I was concerned watching her, like, she was a little shaky. But she got it together pretty quickly. I was surprised, frankly, because just so many of her off-the-cuff moments are so silly. So many of the things she says are so word salad-y.

I think her goal was not to do that, and she succeeded.

Rosin: It’s true. She didn’t sound anything like she can sometimes sound in a public speech, which is like, what are you even saying? Yes.

Leibovich: One test that she passed—I think, brilliantly—and this might sound a tiny bit gendered.

Godfrey: Oh no.

Leibovich: I don’t mean to be, no. I just want to say that when she is prosecutorial in a debate—as she was in 2019 against Biden—she can seem a little intimidating, a little off-putting. She seemed more “happy warrior”-ish in this setting. She looked like she was having fun. I think that was a real benefit to her.

Godfrey: There was a moment where she just looked at him. I forget what the comment he made before it was. But she just looked at him and laughed, and then said “Talk about extreme.”

Rosin: It was the dogs.

Godfrey: The dogs? Okay, yes, that’s right.

Godfrey: And it was just like—I mean, to your point earlier about her sometimes trying to create a moment that feels inauthentic. That felt authentic, because we were all doing that at home. Right. Like, Oh god, what? Yeah. Like, it was just a perfect reaction that felt like her real one.

Rosin: Yes. I am more consistently surprised at how she has, uh, sidetracked or walked around gender and race. Like, I don’t know if that’s, the place where American culture is right now, or I don’t know if that’s her and just kind of the space she inhabits. Because she’s more of, like, a third-culture kid with a lot of, you know, mixed kind of ethnic heritage.

But it just wasn’t a big deal in this debate. Gender’s just not—doesn’t seem like—a huge thing hanging over this election. What about Trump? So the question was: What were their goals going into the debate, and how did they accomplish them? Um, what do you think Trump’s requirement was in this debate?

Leibovich: Uh: stay in control, don’t be triggered. You know, hit your issues like immigration, the economy. Uh, I think he failed on all those things.

Rosin: Mm hmm. What about his other stated goal, which was tying Harris to Biden? That was a big thing that he was supposed to be doing. How did he do with that?

Godfrey: So, his closing remarks were, I think, his most effective of the night, which were: If you want to do all these things, why haven’t you done them? You’re literally in the White House right now.

Godfrey: My dude, you got to open with that. Like, that’s insane to wait till the last minute when everyone’s in bed. Uh, no one’s paying attention to you anymore. And I also think he couldn’t decide whether he wanted to tie Harris to Biden or say “Biden hates you.” You know—

Leibovich: —that was weird.

Godfrey: He said both. I mean, pick one. If I’m Kamala Harris, I’m saying, “Okay, which one? Are we best friends or are we enemies?” So I sort of think he failed on that. He could have done better. That was a huge missed opportunity.

Rosin: So, we don’t really get much policy in these debates, but I want to talk about what little policy we did get. What of the policy talk stuck with you?

Godfrey: Well, the moderators did a good job asking about policy. They tried. They tried to fact-check. They, you know, they tried. Uh, the thing that stuck with me—one of the moments—I think, was Trump wouldn’t say whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war against Russia. I thought it was good that the moderators asked him again after he dodged the question, and he dodged it again. Making his, you know, non-position here very visible.

It’s just such a layup to answer that question, and I just thought it was silly that he couldn’t. The other, I think, was when they asked him if he would veto an abortion ban. They said, J. D. Vance, your running mate, said you would veto an abortion ban if it came across your desk. And he basically said, I don’t know that guy.

You know, he was like, “We don’t talk.”

Godfrey: And I just thought that was, like, another easy question. This guy should know his position. Yes or no? He should know it.

Rosin: You know, often when he talked about either policy issues and especially foreign policy, like Ukraine and Gaza, I had in mind what Bill Clinton said, which was: Count the I’s. Like, count the number of times he says “I.”

So they would ask him a serious policy question, and he would say, “I know Putin; I know Viktor Orbán. If I had been in charge, the Gaza war wouldn’t have happened. It was odd, as a foreign-policy construction, to consistently talk about his personal relationships with, essentially, dictators. Yeah.

Godfrey: And, two points on that. He appears to think strongman means “very strong man.” Which I thought was fun. And the other point is—

Rosin: You’re so right! I didn’t think of that. Like we use strongman ironically. He uses it literally like it’s “a strong man.” Yes.

Godfrey: —is a very, very strong man.

Godfrey: The other thing was his point about wanting, that if he was president-elect, he could end the Russia-Ukraine war. Which I thought was a very, uh, funny point to make. And I would have liked the moderators to say, “How would you do that without being president?”

They didn’t have time for that, apparently, but I thought that was fun.

Rosin: I think I had an expectation that Kamala Harris would talk a little bit more about some of her policies, a little bit more. Like, maybe this is a naive expectation, but even with immigration, you know, nobody says the obvious. Immigrants don’t cause crime. You know, immigrants are more likely to be employed.

You know, this thing that he says constantly at his rallies about how they’re sending us their criminal immigrants. Like, there’s no basic, defensive immigration policy. And then the remarkable moment about the Affordable Care Act.

Godfrey: He had nine years to come up with the response to that question, and then he had only a concept of a plan.

Rosin: I think that is a line that people will use in many different ways.

Godfrey: Oh God, it’s all over social media. Everybody’s using it.

Leibovich: As I was watching the debate, I mean, there were many moments where Kamala Harris, I kind of wished would step outside herself and say, “Wait a minute. You did everything possible to kill Obamacare. You spent months trying to do it. You almost did. I was in the Senate. You remember this, or maybe you remember this.”

But John McCain, was the only thing that stood between you and the end of health insurance for, you know, millions and millions of Americans.

Rosin: It’s true because people do misremember his specific record, like what he did in terms of policy. Okay, one last detail about the debate. I was watching this closely because I’m doing a big podcast project about January 6ers and so I’ve just been deep in that world for a while. The way he talked about January 6 and the insurrection, very surprising to me.

Rosin: He goes back and forth in when he leans in and leans out to, you know, they’re political prisoners, you know; that day was a glorious revolution. He has lately leaned away from it, like at the Republican National Convention. There just wasn’t much talk about this. The moderators gave him an out. They said, Hey, lately you’ve been sort of trying to accept that maybe you lost the election.

And boy, did he not take it.

Rosin: What did you guys think? Were you surprised by that moment?

Leibovich: I mean, he doesn’t do regret. He doesn’t do, I mean, looking back, he doesn’t certainly do apologies, that kind of thing. Although, again, I do think I would have loved to have heard Kamala Harris do a—I mean, she did her thing, like, “I was in the Senate that day”; she did a personal remembrance; but at a couple of points during the debate, I was kind of wishing that she would just step back and look at him and into the microphone and say, “Are you serious?”

Like, you actually thought this was like a day that celebrated you? That’s why I kind of wish that there were two mics on at the same time. There could have been more of an interplay, which I think she could have benefited from.

But yeah, no, I mean, anything January 6–related, he sounds ridiculous.

Rosin: She did have a good line about, or a repeated line about, him selling out democracy. Now, maybe that doesn’t play with people, but she talked about that in terms of the strong men. “Strong men.” Viktor Orbán. They are strong.

Godfrey: Are so strong.

Rosin: She talked about it in terms of January 6. I’m not sure if that kind of abstraction lands with people.

So maybe you’re right. You just need to say something as straightforward as, like, cut it. Like we all know what happened that day, you know.

Okay, post-debate. So the debate happened. It feels like everybody, Republicans included, are acting as if Kamala Harris won the debate. Trump was off his game. Does it matter?

What has changed post-debate? Like, what things are no longer possible? I will throw one out, which is that Kamala Harris is now impressed in our minds as someone who can be president, who can speak like a president, who can speak on a national stage. I’m sure there are lots of people who were not sure about that before this, or who didn’t know, maybe, like, hadn’t—I haven’t seen her speak or anything like that.

Godfrey: Yeah, I think before this, I had written—many people had written—that she isn’t very good at extemporaneous speaking, that she’s good on a teleprompter, she’s good at rallies, but we haven’t really seen her do these kinds of live events where she speaks intelligently, where she speaks clearly. And this was the ultimate test of that.

And I think now, we’ll not write those pieces questioning that anymore, right? I mean, you can question her answers, but I think she has demonstrated this ability to speak in a presidential way and, crucially, to react to Trump and not be rattled. To be onstage with him and be amused rather than rattled.

Rosin: And why does that matter? Sort of, what does that change in the long term? I see that it changes, it kind of eliminates a criticism of her, but does that criticism matter to people who are voting?

Godfrey: This debate was not for people who already sort of know where their allegiances lie. This debate was for swing voters. I think swing voters, at least many women, want to see less of the “They’re eating dogs in Ohio” talk and more sort of policy talk, more calmness, more stability in a leader.

I think they got that. So is that persuasive? I’m not sure. So I guess we can’t answer the question of whether it’s effective yet, maybe, but I think it helps. I think it helps with the general image of Kamala Harris as a candidate, which will help swing voters make up their minds.

Leibovich: I think it was definitely helpful to Kamala Harris. I mean, I think she won the debate. I think she imprinted very well as someone who could be president, that people, I think, probably, think better of. However, I remember, you know, we all were declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of all three debates in 2016.

There’s a reason no woman’s ever been elected president of this country. I have kind of lost a lot of confidence in my ability to read how Americans watch these things. I do know that, quite often, the bubble that we all reside in as reporters, as media people, just as people who pay attention to the stuff, is not representative of how many, many—if not most—Americans watch it.

So I think humility is in order, but I think the encouragement that the Harris people are projecting is definitely merited.

Rosin: So as people have watched politics, and we always are prognosticating, like, what sticks? Where’s there a bump? How long does the bump last? What would you be watching for after the debate?

Godfrey: Well, one thing I’m watching, something that happened right after the debate, was Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala.

Rosin: I was going to ask you about that, but then I’m like, It’s so sexist. Why am I asking Elaine? Shouldn’t I—

Godfrey: I love Taylor Swift. Don’t ask—

Leibovich: I like Taylor Swift too.

Rosin: He doesn’t even know who she is.

Godfrey: He’s never heard of her.

Leibovich: Come on, guys!

Godfrey: I’m a big Swift fan. So I feel qualified to speak on this. My assumption is there was some behind—

Rosin: By the way, I knew that. I’m not being sexist.

Godfrey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. Um, no, my assumption is there was some behind-the-scenes planning going on here, because as soon as she endorsed Kamala Harris—it was as soon as the debate was over—Harris gave a post-debate speech in front of some supporters, walked off the stage to a Taylor Swift song, and then immediately in her online merch shop, there were friendship bracelets you could buy for Kamala Harris, which as we all know is a Taylor Swift thing now. And so I think that was an interesting move.

I would imagine that they timed the announcement to extend the honeymoon, to sort of say, Okay, the debate was good. Let’s do this announcement. We’ll get it out there. We’ll keep it going. I guess I’m watching in the next few weeks: Do they do something together? Is there any more interplay between Taylor and Kamala?

And if so, how painful is it to watch? Is it very cringey? Is it fun? Like, sort of, what, how do they use each other going forward, if at all? Otherwise, I guess I’m looking at poll numbers and swing states. I’m looking at the swing voters. Did your impression of Kamala Harris change after that? Or of Donald Trump change after the debate?

Leibovich: Yeah, I think I probably don’t look as much to, like, shorter-term numbers because I mean, post-debate stuff is—as the politics people say—“noisy,” meaning, you sort of go by quick impressions and so forth, and then it kind of levels out. But I do think that this is another overused term these days, permission structure.

I think there is a kind of low-grade acceptance of Kamala Harris as a serious statesman-like—stateswoman-like—figure in our politics that I think over time will become more normal and I think easier to vote for.

Rosin: Strong woman.

Leibovich: She’s a strong woman. It’s good to be a strong woman and a strong man.

Rosin: Okay, last thing: Elaine, which Taylor Swift song? So just imagine for yourself, like, cat-lady Swift—everyone go look at the Insta photo—cat-lady Swift and Kamala walk out onstage; what’s the song?

Godfrey: What Taylor Swift song …

Leibovich: What if I name a song?

Godfrey: Mark, you don’t even know.

Leibovich: It’s been a “cruel summer” for Donald Trump, I’ll tell you that much.

Godfrey: I sort of feel like it’s “Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me?”

Leibovich: Pretty good.

Rosin: Okay. We have a winner.

Godfrey: You don’t even know that song.

Leibovich: I do, too. “Who’s afraid of little old me?” Oh, how about this? “I Knew You Were Trouble.”

Godfrey: Yeah, that’s good, too.

Leibovich: Not bad. “Look—

Godfrey: “What You Made Me Do,” Mark.

Rosin: That’s Trump’s song for this debate.

Leibovich: Actually, you know what Trump’s song is? “Don’t Blame Me.”

Godfrey: Maybe her song is “The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived.”

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That could be. Is that actually the name of a song?

Godfrey: Yes, Mark!

Leibovich: How about this? This could actually be pretty good. There’s a song “ME!”

Rosin: Obviously Trump.

Godfrey: That’s his song. It’s also the worst in her catalog.

Leibovich: You’re so high school.

Godfrey: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: You’re my “Anti-Hero,” Elaine.

Rosin: Alright, that’s it. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Elaine, for joining me.

Leibovich: “Are You Ready For It?”

Godfrey: [Laughs.] Mark’s still in it. That’s enough. Thanks, Hanna.

Leibovich: “Smallest Man Who Ever Lived” is good.

Godfrey: No, it’s really good.

[Music]

Rosin: This episode was produced by Kevin Townsend and edited by Claudine Ebeid. It was engineered by Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

And just a heads up: Since we’re publishing this episode a day early, on Wednesday, we won’t have an episode on Thursday. I’m Hanna Rosin. Thank you for listening.